to indicate their legal interest, the Respondent State challenges the very purpose and function for which the African Commission was established. 67. Additionally, the Complainants argue that Article 56 of the African Charter which governs the Admissibility of a Communication lists only seven Admissibility requirements, and that „legal interest‟ or „citizenship of the Complainant‟ are not included in that list. They argue further that Article 56 AC HP R provides a minimum threshold requirement, which is intended to encourage, rather than stifle the submission of allegations of human rights violations before the African Commission. Furthermore, stated that Article 56 assist the African Commission to ensure that vexatious Communications are sifted out, and allow issue-driven Communications to be entertained by it,. 68. Regarding the Respondent State‟s argument that actio popularis is not part of their domestic law, the Complainants submit that this assertion is irrelevant because the Respondent State did not sign a domestic document, but sign an international human rights document, which by its very nature is intended to have remedial consequences. This requires signatory States to submit themselves to scrutiny by the African Commission in respect of the alleged violations of human and peoples‟ rights. 69. In conclusion, the Complainants assert that by requiring the Complainants to demonstrate direct legal interest in a Communication would be restrictive and „impermissibly narrow which will fail to have regard to the accepted constitutional norms and the express provisions of the African Charter‟. Furthermore, the Complainants submit that such an approach would also fail to take into account the function and purpose of the African Commission. Consequently, it is the Complainants‟ prayers that a generous and purposive 13